Bob Costas Pushes Gun Control On SNF

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Reply to post by neo96
 


Not forks and spoons, but fat foods.

You have jerk offs like Bloomberg, refusing FEMA food to thousands of hungry storm victims because he cannot assess the fat content.

So while your example is funny as hell with the forks and spoons, it's unnervingly true already. I don't know why people want to outlaw fireams. They cannot for a second really believe that humans will be somehow a gentler species without them, can they? Stabbings and beatings will go through the roof.

If anything, more guns is the answer. God made men, but all of em having guns makes them equal. That's how I see it.

If Belcher's girl had a piece, she could have protected herself and then their daughter would still have at least 1 parent. So I say more guns.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


WOW, we actually agree. Weird.

Anti's are merely uneducated fools that fear an inanimate object, that refuse to come to terms that legislating possibilities never work.

Basically, people fear it, so it must be bad and not allowed by anyone.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


Ok what did you do with that person named spinal?

The world really must be ending never thought we'd ever agree on anything.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Reply to post by neo96
 


Im still the same dude I've always been. I like hot women, loud guns, a good football game and a beer just like you guys. We just disagree on some social issues is all. Im not an alien ya know.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Hey Bob Costas! FREE people own guns, SLAVES don't!

Where's common sense anymore? Freakin' brainwashed sheeple drinking too much tap water!



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
You guys wanna really vomit at Costas?

Watch him in a setting with only white guys. Then watch him when he's sitting with a couple of black guys. He changes the way he speaks and his entire persona changes, like he's "down with the brothas". He is the epitome of a phony piece of garbage and the guy loves himself to a ludicrous degree. Don't believe me? See for yourself. Make a mental note and watch him.

The fact that he pushes his views on national television are no surprise. He probably thinks we care about what goes on inside his phony Costas brain.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

....the NFL green lighted making this about the gun in the player's hand because they are scared to death the public is going to start questioning the brain inside the player's head and the drugs inside the player's medicine cabinet with team doctor signatures on the bottles. This guy had a history of head injuries and was on several pain killers and concussion related medicines.

Remember Chris Benoit, wrestling fans. The initial idea was steroids, but the coroner report on him indicated some pretty serious past brain injuries. (Benoit killed his wife, young son, and then himself a couple of years ago for anyone who doesn't know). Now look at the NFL. Currently they are in what could easily become a fight for survival with former players who suffered from head and brain injuries. A number of these players have fought everything from depression to substance abuse to outright breakdown of their faculties and all of them have said the teams and the league doctors threw pills at them, sent them home, and then encouraged them to be right back on the field next game. Throw into this the fact that the specter of a Congressional investigation into the safety of football has been raised already, long before this incident, and you can see why the league would LOVE to see the majority of the media focus on the firearm aspect of this crime....



I thought this was very insightful, and probably true. If anyone missed it, they should go back and read burdman's whole post.

And in terms of those who point out that a gun would not have been necessary for homicide, I will agree and point out that OJ Simpson didn't use a gun, and he seemed to pretty effectively murder a couple people.

(Then wrote a book basically confessing, once he was no longer afraid of double jeopardy-- yeah, I'd say that seems a bit brain-damaged to me.
)
edit on 3-12-2012 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
We should ban guns because guns attack people. On the same note cameras cause child porn. If pedophiles didn't have cameras they couldn't make child porn. Sure, pedophiles could make sketches or paintings, but the amount of child porn would go down

We need to do background checks on people who buy cameras. Anybody could be a child pornographer. We also need to limit the amount of pictures in a camera to 10, to prevent mass child porn taking, and reduce lens length, as their could be a pornographer with a telephoto lens making porn from long distance.

The DSLR cameras are a definite no-no. One squeeze of the shutter takes multiple pictures. Only kiddie porn makers would want such a device!

If you don't support my camera ban you are clearly only interested in diddling little children!



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
After every shooting the nanny state supporters wring their hands and lament about gun ownership in America.

Blame the object, not the person who was using it.

Only a fool would think that taking guns away from law abiding citizens would protect them from those who do not follow laws.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Ok, first off I don't care about your guns, keep em, it's none of my buisness BUT if you think that if someone got angry and shot someone that if they didn't have a gun they would just find another way to kill the person I'm gonna call BS. Stabbing someone to death or beating someone to death is very different than pulling a trigger. It takes alot more commitment and craziness than a split second desicion to pull a trigger. Sure it will still happen because some people are that batsnit crazy. But there are many murders that I'm sure would not have happened had a gun not been available. Y'now the heat of the moment type murders.

edit on 3-12-2012 by Gargamel because: typo



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
It's hard to believe they are saying if he didn't have a gun she would still be alive in this case. I can see some situations where that may be true. However this is not one of them.

He shot her 9 times, not once. 9 times...

Strict..



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I heard that crap last night. I didn't tune in to watch this idiot politicize a situation that he knows nothing about. Then again, its NBC, so I would expect nothing less.

I doubt a gun ban would've made a difference, just as the lack of a gun doesn't make a difference in the 5,000+ homicides (and 35-40% of the total) every year that *don't* involve a firearm in the US. Firearms are merely a commonly used weapon, but they are not a motivating factor. Even in their absence, people are more than willing to kill each other as they have proven throughout human existence and long before the first firearm was invented.

For my part, I suspect that a US gun ban would actually cause the homicide rate to increase, because you would probably see a dramatic increase in home invasions in areas where you currently don't see them happening. The criminals would, after all, be the only ones with firearms and would likely be emboldened by that fact. I also doubt that you'd see much decrease in other sources of homicides, as most of the perpetrators would simply use another weapon.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Don't worry. I don't have the numbers but I'm guessing the audience Boob Costas is speaking to is predominantly pro-gun... probably 85-90% or so....

..hence the backlash/threads/reaction.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Wah, wah, wah....I hear both sides every time someone prominent snaps and kills people with a gun or some nut shoots a bunch of people. The person could have done it with a knife or car, the gun didn't kill someone, the person using it did. They are coming to get our guns, Hitler did it, Obama wants to do it, be afraid! We need our .22's in case the government shows up in tanks with automatic weapons to protect our "freedoms".

A handgun is made to do one thing: shoot somebody (and target practice so you can learn to shoot somebody with greater accuracy). I can't drive it to work, I can't cut my steak with it. Rifles are hunting weapons, handguns are made to kill people. I don't need a handgun, my shotgun works just fine. Outside of law enforcement and maybe the military, nobody needs them, they just want them.

It's real easy for a person to pull a trigger, it requires no effort. A child can do it (and too often do). It takes a lot more to swing a bat (which I can also use to play ball), a knife, strangle someone or run them over with a car. A handgun is as impersonal as it gets. A person can get shot from a few feet, you don't even need to hit them in a good spot, just hit them often. A handgun makes you brave. Or makes it easier in a fit of rage to kill someone.

Second amendment was written when muskets and flintlock pistols were "state of the art." Trying to apply a 200 year old "right" to semi-automatic or powerful handguns is ridiculous and simply silly. When the government comes for you, they will bring SWAT level teams with enough armaments to just blow up your house with you and your guns in it. Or just take you down when you walk outside....from 300 yards away. This isn't 1776 or even 1940. And we aren't in some third world country.

How many soldiers have we lost in Afghanistan and Iraq? How many were killed with handguns? Rifles, IED's, grenades, maybe even missile launchers. But pistols?

Ultimately, if we want to own weapons, let's not ban any of them. I want a howitzer in my back yard, a machine gun nest on my roof, a box of grenades at every window and a missile silo in my garage. Because missiles don't kill people. People do.

If you are serious about your Second Amendment rights, then at least fight for something I can actually use. Until then, I'll stick with my 12-gauge and 30.06.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Costas is an idiot.

What happens when the next athlete decides to drown himself?

What if the next person happens to be Ocho Sinko?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 


He is such a stupid bastard; like that big ape couldn't have strangled the broad with his bare hands. Or let's forget about cars that kill more people than just about anything. The weapons don't source the intent to kill, the human does. That gun can no more get up and shoot you on it's own than a pink elephant can fly. I mean let's just forget about all the other nasty object you can kill a person with. Gun control and it's advocates lack any logic or reasoning whatsoever. Wanna ban guns? I'll laugh my ass off in six months when Knife crimes go up 185%.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Beaux
 


Actually killing someone with any of those things you mentioned is just as easy. See how well someone can get up after they've had their entire jugular eviscerated, or hit by a 3000 lb car going 85 mph, or even blur force trauma from a baseball bat. Gun control advocates are just cherry picking data; wanna know what you can't do with the above though? Fight off an invading or domestic army.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Beaux
 


Under common law; your preemptive arguments are invalid. You don't just make a law saying nobody can have guns without detrimental cause first. I can already tell you will say, it is for our safety and is necessary. If you are irresponsible and hurt someone with a gun, regardless of the model and type, you get your ass sued in Common Law court just like they did, and you go to jail.

Also do you think the founding fathers were stupid enough to believe flintlock muskets and single shot firearms would be state of the art in 200 years? Short answer: No.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Or let's forget all about drugs that were outlawed; yet they can't keep drug dealers from getting them. What makes the relationship of illegal guns and criminals any different?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   


FREE people own guns, SLAVES don't!


Free people don't need guns.

Costas was absolutely right, those two people would most likely still be alive if he didn't have a gun.

It's funny that the "pro-life" people have so little regard for life (or common sense).





top topics
 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join